Why Are Areas Closed Down To OHV's?

[MMM]

sal I disagree with your views. If you consider that calling you a lier, so be it. I go to the desert and only see isolated instances of OHV abuse. I disagree with you on tens of thousands of acres of damage and your photos never show that much. They show isolated small areas of misuse. Even the photos your fellow anti-ohv folk love show really small areas of damage, even to the point of close ups. If you look for damage you can find it. I contend that I can find literly tens of MILLIONS of acres of desert lands that have zero OHV impacts. You and folk like you can not say the same about OHV damage. sal, it would appear that the only solution that you and your friends can or will accept is the total and complete removal of OHVs from public and private lands. And this is not going to happen.

Mike

[Sal]

MMM there are 640 acres to a square mile. In many areas of the desert you can literally find dozens of square miles impacted by OHV's to the extent that the ground is barren of vegetation from OHV's illegally travelling off of established routes (we're not even talking legal routes) and riding around creosote bushes as if they were traffic cones. 12 square miles times 640 acres repeated throughout the desert--you do the math.

While I do not advocate for complete removal of OHV's I do advocate for a system of holding the riders responsible for the effects of their recreation--such as the visible plates mentioned above.

The public at large is not stupid and they are not indifferent to the destruction of public and private lands by uncaring or ignorant OHV riders. Riders deny the obvious at their own peril.

[desert wanderer]

MMM there are 640 acres to a square mile. In many areas of the desert you can literally find dozens of square miles impacted by OHV's to the extent that the ground is barren of vegetation from OHV's illegally travelling off of established routes (we're not even talking legal routes) and riding around creosote bushes as if they were traffic cones. 12 square miles times 640 acres repeated throughout the desert--you do the math.

While I do not advocate for complete removal of OHV's I do advocate for a system of holding the riders responsible for the effects of their recreation--such as the visible plates mentioned above.

The public at large is not stupid and they are not indifferent to the destruction of public and private lands by uncaring or ignorant OHV riders. Riders deny the obvious at their own peril.

Sal, I've seen areas decimated by OHV riding, as I do extensive trips in the deserts of the west. And, the damage certainly accelerates erosion of the affected areas. Your suggestion of mandating of visible plates seems plausible. I understand of where you're "coming from". I stopped riding OHVs many years ago, the primary reason being the fact that I prefer the silence, the silence of the lands, so to speak. For me it provides the soul-restoring illusion of remoteness and isolation that my brain needs. Not everyone feels this way, and for me, I recognize the need that others have to ride OHVs. If they would stay in the appropriate areas, while having the plates as you suggested, would seem to sensibly appease both ends of the environmental spectrum. The one thing I am worried about, is shutting off of the desert for the elderly and infirmed, that cannot hike a sufficient distance to really KNOW and enjoy the wonder and peace the deep deserts impart.

[MMM]

dozens of square miles, ok I might buy that, say what 36 square miles to think about? That is ohh 23,000 acres. Once again I remind you that in California alone there are over 12 MILLION acres of lands where OHV use (limited street legal use in monuments and National Parks) is forbiden means there are thousands of times more land where you will not see any OHV damage. I have already agreeded to OHV plates.

Mike

[LeeVW]

Both DW and MMM have valid points. We already have millions of acres with the highest form of protection the law can provide. Why is that conveniently forgotten every time someone speaks out against OHV use? The BLM has a hard enough time enforcing existing closures, how do you think they will be able to enforce even more closures?

I will readily admit that there is extensive damage out there. The closer to paved roads you are, the more damage you will find. If a spot is easily accessible by RV, you can almost guarantee it will be ripped up. It seems as though many riders treat Limited Use areas the same way they treat Open areas - ride where they like. The BLM has installed large signs explaining what Limited Use means in some of the trouble spots, and this seems to have helped (that, and eliminating illegal RV staging areas).

To DW and MMM - remember that the people who speak out against illegal OHV use on this forum are property owners. They see the damage firsthand, often times on their own property. It IS in their back yard. And front yard. They see the worst of the worst every weekend, so they are bound to be more passionate about the issue than the average citizen. Millions of acres of Wilderness do not affect them, as riders continue to rip it up in their neighborhoods all the time. Just trying to put some perspective on the situation.

Lee

[MMM]

Thank you Lee. You are correct. The closer you are to a city and paved roads, the more damage you will see. To that end I fully support full and complete enforcement of laws regulating the use of OHVs and holding riders accountable for their actions. I have always said that and will continue to do so. The problem is for many people who support expanded wilderness and monuments any OHV use is considered as excessive. I spoke to a person from a wilderness advocacy group and asked what in his mind qualified as OHV abuse. His responce was simple and direct. Any OHV use of any nature was excessive and must be stoped. Even one OHV was to much to be allowed. Now where or how do you work with that attitude? And that is exactly what I am fighting.

Mike

[LeeVW]

Mike,

You can't work with anyone with that attitude. You'll give yourself an ulcer trying.

Lee

[Teufel_Hunden]

how about this. make it illegal for anyone to build a house, anywhere. stop the bulldozers from plowing up the desert to plant crops. or this, everyone that doesnt want to see or hear ohvs, GO SOMEWHERE WHERE PEOPLE DONT RIDE! i swear some of you dont have brain cell 1.
example: in california, they are talking about making the eastern side of the sierras wilderness all the way to hwy 395. theres nothing about that area that matches the definition of wilderness. how about this, everyone from LA or any city at that, stay home, stop closing down areas like fish slough.
in case you're wondering, fish slough is a spring that my grandpa used to take me when i was just a little guy to go swimming. well the brainless wonders that have those framed papers on the wall, you know, degrees, went there back in the 90s and "discovered" pup fish there and had it closed down. well now the pup fish are dead and the toolies are overgrown. good job there tree huggers.

*edit* vegetarians kill more animals and ruin more landscape than ohvs. lets ban them.

[reptilist]

Sounds to me like the pup fish pre-owned fish slough long before your family started using it...
I think it is sad that you cannot position yourself as a benefactor to their legacy.

I extend the benefit of a doubt that maybe you were a conscientious visitor to their habitat, but most people are not.
Even if most people were, the sheer volume of human visitors would be overwhelming and deleterious to the fish's survival.
The fish and the habitat has to be protected from apathy, and also from too much lovin'.

Sorry, but the totality of your emotional rant has no merit what-so-ever...
Kinda reminds me of the old days on the DUSA anti-enviro forum.

[Teufel_Hunden]

let me re-explain it...
the pupfish are gone because of the toolies choking up the spring. with the lack of humans swimming and pretty much regulating the growth of the toolies this happened...